It is odd to me that others think me odd for not pirating software, music, video games, movies, etc.  Yet it seems that I must be because virtually everyone I know does it and doesn't think anything of it, and when I get asked why I don't do it, which comes up more often than I'd like, I get the distinct impression that people think I'm crazy.  Now, I'm not writing to toot my own horn by any means; I'm writing in the hopes of bringing others around to my way of thinking because I think it is truth. 

When did it become okay to do something morally wrong just because nobody (apparently) is getting hurt?  When was the last time you went to a ritzy neighborhood, broke into a house, and stole, e.g., a nice piece of art?  Have you recently stolen someone's Bently or Ferrari?  Would you, if you could get away with it? 

I trust that most everyone would never think of doing one of these things, yet, morally speaking, there is no distinction between doing these things and pirating media.  They are all theft.  The reason I specifically mention "ritzy" and named pricey cars is that one of the oft-given rationalizations for piracy is something like "oh, but it's just a rich company" or "it doesn't hurt anyone--they've got more money than they know what to do with."  You see, in all probability, if someone lives in a rich neighborhood or drives a car worth over $100k, they can probably recuperate from such a loss, especially if they have insurance.  So why not just go steal from them?

The answer should be obvious to most, if not all, of us.  It is just wrong--you are stealing from those people.  So what if they're rich?  How rich does someone have to be for stealing from them to become okay?  Can we set an objective dollar amount so that we can all know from whom it is okay to steal?

Another rationalization is that "everyone is doing it."  Well, I have news: everyone is not doing it.  Even if everyone else in the world were, I am not, but I can assure you that I am not alone, even if I am in the minority.  And in any case, morality is not a matter of popular persuasion; it is the basis of civilization.

For those of the Judeo-Christian and Muslim persuasion, God has revealed that stealing is morally wrong in black and white--thou shalt not steal.  There are no qualifications, no ifs, ands, or buts.  No rationalizations.  God didn't say "thou shalt not steal unless the person/company is rich."  God didn't say "thou shalt not steal unless everyone else is doing it."  God didn't say "thou shalt not steal unless it seems to you that no one will be hurt by it."  God simply said "thou shalt not steal."  For us, there's no middle ground or waffling; stealing is a sin.

For those who don't believe in God or don't believe in divine revelation, they can simply consider it from a purely selfish perspective.  Human society requires that we have moral norms that protect individual dignity.  Part of that dignity is the right to believe how we choose to believe, so even if you believe in some radical communism or simply disbelieve in the notion of personal property, if you want to live in a rational, civilized society and have your human dignity protected, you need to respect that same dignity in others and seek to protect it for them.

For instance, if I believe in personal property, and I think that this keyboard I'm typing on is mine, you need to respect it out of the simple, selfish motivation that you want others to respect your own beliefs.  To do otherwise is to destroy the fabric of human society and civilization.  Without this mutual respect, there are no grounds for any kind of limit on what humans can do to each other; without it, chaos, war, and death will prevail.  This common respect for human dignity is the basis of all just law, which is simply a formalization of the principle into concrete and specific applications.

It is commonly held that a product belongs to its producer, and, as such, the producer has first rights to determine its use.  If the producer believes that it should be sold and for a certain amount, we should respect that belief and either purchase it at the price that the producer asks for it or simply refuse to buy it and otherwise not take or use it.  To take something against the owner's wishes is a violation of that person's human dignity and damages one's right to demand respect for one's own dignity from others; thus, not stealing is simply an expression of self-preservation.  The same principle extends to bodies of individuals (a.k.a., corporations, companies, organizations, etc.).

So the next time you decide that you need this piece of software, that album, this movie, etc. and are tempted to obtain it in a way that bypasses the means that the owner has established for obtaining it, consider that you are wearing away the fabric of civilized society, damaging your own human dignity and your right to protect it, and causing an offense to God.  If you're not okay with that, then just buy the dang thing or don't get it at all.  Yes, it might not be convenient, and it might even be hard at times, but I can assure you from personal experience that it is a much better and more fulfilling way to live.